[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


In this case, the "victim" was a scared girl, who, after a drunken night, felt she may have been raped.

In the Duke case, the victim knew damned well she wasn't raped, and was out looking for attention and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't disagree with you. The victim should be charged. If the DA was "a victim" of her lies, then that just makes him a "bad DA" and not guilty of criminal negligence or malice.

I 100% agree with you on this in retrospect (although I still think the DA was probably negligent of his duties in this case).

EDIT TO ADD: This is also why I would refuse to vote 10 minutes into jury delibarations (except for an unofficial straw, if that's even kosher) if I was on a jury. I'd have to do some serious pondering of the evidence if I have the opportunity of screwing up and sending an innocent man to jail or letting someone like a serial rapist go free. That said, it's up to the prosecution to make the case and I would lean hard toward the former if the case wasn't clearly made. I'd still probably convict a majority of the time, though, since "most" cases have pretty hard evidence behind them.